Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,315
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.


"Eisboch" wrote in message
...



Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)



Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch





I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)


  #2   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,091
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.


" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)



http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php

Eisboch


  #3   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,315
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.


"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)



http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php

Eisboch


That guy can certainly put some power into his peddling! Maybe a slick road
surface helped................;-)


  #4   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,315
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.


" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..



I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)



http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php

Eisboch


That guy can certainly put some power into his peddling! Maybe a slick
road surface helped................;-)


Damn spell check..........'pedaling'.........not 'peddling'. ;-)


  #5   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 630
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.

Eisboch wrote:
" JimH" not telling you @ pffftt.com wrote in message
. ..


I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)



http://www.boreme.com/boreme/funny-2...burnout-p1.php


I wonder how many calories you burn drifting a bicycle for 10 minutes?



  #6   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,978
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.


JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...



Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)



Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch





I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)


Grow up and act like a man.

  #7   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 630
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.

basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)


Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch




I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)


Grow up and act like a man.


Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things just do by.

  #8   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 45
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.


"Bert Robbins" wrote in message
. ..
basskisser wrote:
JimH wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)


Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very
short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models
and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car". (It's
an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed
had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression ratios
and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in
engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can
outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge Charger
R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high
output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is true
of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch




I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)


Grow up and act like a man.


Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things just do by.


Kevin wouldn't know the definition of a "man" if it bitch slapped him in the
head.




  #9   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,995
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.

Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:

JimH wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any type.
;-)


Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very
short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car models
and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car".
(It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the fed
had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression
ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in
engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can
outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge
Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high
output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is
true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch




I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)



Grow up and act like a man.


Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things *just do by*.



Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.

  #10   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 630
Default Ping-- Chuck Gould--VHF Article.

Don White wrote:
Bert Robbins wrote:
basskisser wrote:

JimH wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Yep. And that is the reason I will not buy a muscle car of any
type.
;-)


Funny that you say that. The true "muscle car" era was very
short-lived.
It's origins was in the early 60's with limited availability to the
consumer - manufacturers had to build a minimum number of car
models and
engines (427 Ford, 426 hemi Chrysler) engines a year to qualify as
"stock" for NASCAR racing purposes. The 1964 Pontiac Tempest GTO is
considered by many to be the first mass produced "muscle car".
(It's an
interesting story how how John DeLoreon managed sneak that one by the
Board of Directors at Pontiac). But, by the end of the 60's the
fed had
started imposing emission requirements that lowered compression
ratios and
horsepower. By 1972 there was no longer a true stock "muscle car".

Now, within the past 5 years or so and due to advancements in
engineering
and engine design, there are some current model cars that can
outperform
their 1960 something counterparts. For example, the new Dodge
Charger R/T
with the mini-hemi is faster than a '69 Charger R/T with the high
output
440.
Not by much ... but it's faster and handles much better. Same is
true of
the limited production version of the new GTO.

So .... you may be driving a muscle car and not even realize it.

Eisboch




I can burn rubber with my 6 cylinder 2005 Mercury Sable. ;-)


Grow up and act like a man.


Kevin, you and Don are quickly becoming the primary idiots of the
newsgroup. Neither of you knows when to shut up and let things *just
do by*.



Oh my! You're 'special' Bertie.


Don, do you attack everyone's typing mistakes, yours included? Do you
incessantly send letters to your local newspaper every time you find an
error in typesetting or a grammatical error?

If someone stutters while speaking do you attack them and say they are
"special?" Your pedantic ways are akin to Kevin's dogged attack of
anything and everything.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ding Dong: Chuck Gould JimH General 2 June 15th 06 07:46 AM
OT Ping Chuck Gould RG General 73 January 16th 06 05:47 AM
Ping: Chuck Gould JimH General 1 December 21st 05 04:49 AM
So where is...................... *JimH* General 186 November 28th 05 02:29 PM
OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. NOYB General 23 February 6th 04 04:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017